Newsflash to Provincial Isolationists on Both the Political Right and the Political Left: Globalization is a (Mostly) Good Thing

Fareed Zakaria, who is (among other things) a columnist for Newsweek magazine, has a new book out titled "The Post-American World," in which he postulates that, though the United States will continue to see its ability to dictate its wishes to much, if not all, of the rest of the world diminish in the coming years, it can still provide necessary global leadership in this rapidly paradigm-shifting twenty-first century. Small portions of the book were published in the May 12, 2008 edition of Newsweek, and they provide a capsule review of what many broadly left-ish folks (such as myself) as well as many broadly right-ish folks have been saying for quite some time: when the vitriol, sloganeering, and over-generalizing rhetoric is stripped away, the present consternation felt at a national level in the U.S. is due largely to our confusion regarding how our global influence should adapt to fit our changing needs in this new century. Yes, even many local concerns are due in large part to this scenario.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I have not read the entire book, only the snippets in Newsweek magazine. I stopped by a local bookstore yesterday in order to purchase the book, but it was not there, and the staff seemed quite busy with other customers, so it was either sold-out at that particular store, or it has yet to be published. I will purchase it the moment I see a copy of it on the bookshelves.)

The passages from the book that were printed in Newsweek suggest that Zakaria's mindset is mostly optimistic regarding America's ability to lead in ways that differ from the more heavy-handed methods used in the Cold War- and post-Cold War eras, but he also suggests that, at a societal level, Americans need to be at least broadly informed of the globalization process in order to do that. (Again, this is what I and others have been saying for quite some time.) The first step in that process is to understand that globalization is occurring at vastly accelerating levels. States Zakaria:

"The global economy has more than doubled in size over the last 15 years.... Global trade has grown by 133 percent in the same period. The expansion of the global economic pie has been so large, with so many countries participating, that it has become the dominant force of the current era. Wars, terrorism, and civil strife cause disruptions temporarily but eventually they are overwhelmed by the waves of globalization."

So the ugly side of human nature continues to be displayed, but, in a very real sense, increasing numbers of countries around the world have an increasing stake in each other's futures. Generally speaking, globalization ultimately means that we increasingly rely on economic growth elsewhere, and they rely on economic growth here. Obviously, this is difficult to accept for someone who has lost a manufacturing job here in the U.S. because it is cheaper to ship that job overseas--at least emotionally speaking--and I certainly don't blame that person for feeling that way.

But, overall, the trend suggests that interdependency can work as an increasing deterrent to, say, large-scale armed conflict. Even the potential rise of a Chinese/Russian mega-superpower conglomerate and a North American/European mega-superpower conglomerate will most likely not mean that nuclear war, or the like, between the two sides is imminent, even though tensions will be apparent, because we will largely "own" each other and therefore have a large economic stake in each other's futures.

Zakaria goes on to describe the main (if not only) reason why we are paying a higher price for commodities (such as gasoline) of late, and he is right that it has to do with higher worldwide demand:

"[Massive global economic] growth also explains one of the signature events of our times--soaring commodity prices. $100 oil is just the tip of the barrel.... Food, only a few decades ago in danger of price collapse, is now in the midst of a scary rise. None of this is due to dramatic fall-offs in supply. It is demand, global growing demand, that is fueling these prices. The effect of more and more people eating, drinking, washing, driving, and consuming will have seismic effects on the global system."

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes. The fact of the matter is that about 2.5 billion people live in China and India combined (as opposed to slightly over 300 million in the United States), and many, many more of them are consuming larger and larger amounts of resources at present, even as opposed to a single decade ago, due to the fact that their economies are far more robust now and growing exponentially every month. They are rapidly industrializing, and as they and other countries around the globe become more and more industrialized (and therefore more closely resemble the United States and Western Europe, et al, at least in economic ways), they will do more often what we have been doing for quite some time: continue to demand a larger share of worldwide resources.

Zakaria, by the way, does not dismiss this issue as a silly concern on the part of us Westerners; instead, he suggests that it will increasingly present a "deep problem," though the rise of this problem is a natural result of economic affluence, the likes of which we are accustomed to enjoying, spreading throughout the world. It is therefore a problem that should not--and cannot--be solved by denying people elsewhere the benefits of economic growth, which could eventually create a very dangerous march toward worldwide war (my wording, not his). It must instead be solved through other, creative manners in cooperation with other peoples around the world (again, my wording, not his), amongst which would surely be the rapid mass development of alternative sources of energy.

So is the United States destined to fade in worldwide influence in an increasing manner as this century carries on? Zakaria doesn't necessarily think so, and his rationale for this is, as far as I'm concerned, right on the money: if Americans reclaim, in new and updated ways, our first-with-immigrants status, the United States will continue to prosper and inspire people across the globe. States Zakaria:

"America's hidden secret is [our special history regarding] immigrants. [Presently] foreign students and immigrants account for almost 50 percent of all science researchers in this country. In 2006, they received 40 percent of all PhDs. By 2010, 75 percent of all science PhDs in this country will be awarded to foreign students. When these graduates settle in the country, they create economic opportunity. Half of all Silicon Valley start-ups have one founder who is an immigrant or first generation American. The potential for a new burst of American productivity depends [largely, though not wholly] on our immigration policies. If these people are allowed and encouraged to stay, then innovation will happen here. If they leave, they'll take it with them."

Yes, again. Illegal immigration is indeed a problem, but one of the ways to deal with it is to sort out our cumbersome, increasingly bureaucratic and time-consuming system of legal immigration, which will have the added benefit of better enticing highly-skilled individuals from all over the world to live and work in the United States. We have done that in the past, but the trend is starting to waver right now, due to the ueber-bureaucracy of our system. (Surely we can do background checks and "vet" people in a more streamlined but no-less-thorough manner than we do now...just ask my highly-educated European wife about the levels of patience that are required of one in order to enter legally the United States....) We need to fix this problem and we need to fix it quickly.

Zakaria is optimistic that we can do just that:

"...this is America's great--and potentially insurmountable--strength. [America still] remains the most open, flexible society in the world, able to absorb other people, cultures, ideas, goods, and services. The country thrives on the hunger and energy of poor immigrants. Faced with the new technologies of foreign companies, or growing markets overseas, it adapts and adjusts.... When you compare this dynamism with the closed and hierarchical nations that were once superpowers, you sense that the United States is different...."

Now, before we Americans start patting ourselves on the back for a job well done, Zakaria (again, rightly) suggests that in order to counter the wavering of this trend due to new international economic competition (and, amongst other things, the aforementioned ueber-bureaucratization of our legal immigration system), we need to do a few things, which include continuing to help globalize the world, joining more fully into mutually beneficial agreements regarding this process of globalization, and becoming smarter as a society regarding how the twenty-first century world works:

"To bring others into this [globalized] world, the United States needs to make its own commitment to the system clear. So far, America has been able to have it both ways. It is the global rule-maker but doesn't always play by the rules.... For America to continue to lead the world, we will have to first join it."

He continues:

"For 60 years, the United States has pushed other countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology. American diplomates, businessmen, and intellectuals have urged people in distant lands to be unafriad of change, to join the advanced world, to learn the secrets of our success. Yet just as they are beginning to do so, we are losing faith in such ideas. We have become suspicious of trade, openness, immigration, and investment because now it's not [only] Americans going abroad but [also] foreigners coming to America. Just as the world is opening up, we are closing down."

Again, I acknowledge that the loss of manufacturing jobs in heavily industrial areas of our country is for many an economic tragedy, but, as Zakaria suggests, if it is replaced with a new, dynamic, educated mindset in our workforce (made up of both native-born Americans and immigrants), the United States can and will adjust. And let's also bear in mind that we are seeing a slight wrap-around effect even in manufacturing: due to the weak dollar, the European airline company Airbus recently announced that it was closing some of its European manufacturing plants and opening plants in...the southern United States.

Zakaria concludes by stating the following:

"Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that by the turn of the 21st century, the United States had succeeded in its great, historical mission--globalizing the world. We don't want them to write that along the way, we forgot to globalize ourselves."

I can't put it better than that. But I will add a bit to what Zakaria says: I'm tired of hearing how I (and those of a like mindset) are being "elitist" when we suggest that Americans need to be savvier about geo-politics and geo-culture and more sophisticated regarding our role in it. To suggest that those of us who believe such things are "elitist" is ignorant and idiotic (...oops, that must be my "elitism" again...).

What I and others are suggesting is not elitism, but rather the exact OPPOSITE of elitism, because it suggests that we Americans ALL (or at least the VAST MAJORITY of us) need to push ourselves beyond our rather insular, often parochial thinking patterns in order to elevate our individual and collective understanding of the world, because this will help us all adjust to the new worldwide realities in positive, proactive ways. That is both an individual and ultimately communal (in the sense of society-wide) mindset.

An elitist, on the other hand, would suggest that a select group of people, of whom the elitist is a member, should be the ones to elevate their understanding of the world, and thereby perpetually hold power and influence. In this mindset, the vast majority of Americans would be encouraged to stay ignorant of the world beyond our borders, at least regarding anything beyond the most general, "tourist" levels of global understanding and interaction. These people would be kept out of the overall globalization conversation, on a number of different levels.

So, to those folks who suggest that the vast majority of Americans need not work to adjust and deepen our understanding of the world in accelerated manners, I ask you this: Who exactly is elitist?

p.s. Inevitably, the argument between "buying globally" and "buying locally" tends to work itself into this type of discussion. But one need not buy into such a dichotomy, because they need not (and should not) be seen as being necessarily mutually exclusive. This is to say that the most conscientious, "worldly" path to choose insofar as this is concerned is not to join fully with one side or the other, but rather to do both.